Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma set aside an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court held that appeals under Section 101 of the Act must be heard only by the designated Children’s Court and remitted the matter to the competent forum for reconsideration. In addition, the Delhi High Court ordered that if any case is wrongly marked to a court lacking jurisdiction before the trial courts, the file must be returned to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for fresh allocation. Justice Sharma directed all Principal District and Sessions Judges in the national capital to issue an administrative circular to ensure such compliance.

The case concerned a petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging a judgment delivered by an Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The petitioner, a child in conflict with law, sought to set aside the order directing that he be tried as an adult. It was argued that Section 101(1) of the Act provides that appeals against orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board must lie before the designated Children’s Court as defined under Section 2(20).

Also Read: Supreme Court: Magistrate Empowered to Order FIR Under S.156(3) CrPC When Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence; Restores Investigation in Forged E-Stamp Case

The petitioner contended that since specific Children’s Courts had been notified in Delhi, the impugned judgment was rendered without jurisdiction. The State’s counsel did not dispute this submission. To verify the claim, a report was sought from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, who confirmed that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge–02 was not a designated Children’s Court under the relevant government notifications. The High Court examined whether such lack of jurisdiction caused prejudice to the petitioner and whether the matter required remand to the competent forum for adjudication under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the impugned judgment had been rendered by a court not vested with jurisdiction to decide the appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court stated that “the statutory scheme and notifications make it evident that appeals under the Act must be heard only by the designated Children’s Court.”

Relying on the report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the Court recorded that “the Court of Additional Sessions Judge–02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, does not fall under the category of Children’s Court as defined under Section 2(20) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.”

It was further noted that the appeal before the Sessions Judge concerned whether the child in conflict with law was to be tried as an adult, and the order directing so was passed by a court not competent to adjudicate such appeals. The Bench stated that “the Court of Additional Sessions Judge–02 was not vested with jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals under Section 101 of the JJ Act, which lie exclusively to the Children’s Court.”

Justice Sharma also observed that even if the case had been marked to the Sessions Judge due to an administrative or clerical oversight, “the Presiding Officer, being aware of the statutory limits of jurisdiction, ought to have returned the file to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge for being placed before the competent Children’s Court.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Cancel NBW in AgustaWestland PMLA Case; VC Rules Not a Shield to Avoid Physical Appearance Before ED

The Court ordered: “The impugned judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2023 by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The matter is remitted to the competent Children’s Court (i.e., the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge–01, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) for consideration and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.”

“If any matter is inadvertently marked to a Court lacking jurisdiction, the concerned Judicial Officer shall immediately return the file to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for its allocation to the competent Court.”

“A copy of this order be circulated among the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all districts in Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyam Thareja (DHCLSC) with Mr. Shaurya Katoch and Mr. Shikhar Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State

Case Title: X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 9661
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 484/2024; CRL.M.A. 20096/2024; CRL.M.A. 22133/2024; CRL.M.A. 10993/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma